Does Casey Neistat Register His Drones

About a month ago I posted virtually famed Youtuber Casey Neistat'southward FAA investigation. He casually had mentioned in his vlog that he wouldn't be flight his drone anywhere considering he was being investigated and the cyberspace (well, at to the lowest degree the vlog-following part of the net) went berserk. I tried to clearly distinguish between fact and speculation as to what I thought any enforcement action could wait like, afterwards which I was lectured by Internet Commenters well-nigh how I was an idiot for non knowing the rules nearly whatever information technology is they were saying.

In that location'south no question about it: some of Neistat's drone shots are risky, especially in light of the air traffic above New York City. The r/caseyneistat subreddit and other drone enthusiast sites would constantly go nuts whenever Casey would fly, assuming that Casey had not secured proper permits or licenses to wing in controlled airspace.

As a fan of Neistat'south, a fellow drone operator, and a blogger I wanted to get to the lesser of what was going on. And then I did what any responsible person would do: ~~recklessly speculated and presented my opinions as fact~~ I petitioned the FAA for records of any investigation or compliance action regarding Casey Neistat under the Freedom of Information Deed.

Today I received the results of my request. The FAA could non provide whatsoever sort of inter-part emails, but what they provided was notwithstanding very interesting: a short summary of the complaints received about Casey Neistat and action taken on them.

And so, was it as exciting and crazy equally I'm hoping for?

Well, non really. Similar nigh things, the details are normally much more boring than the headlines.

The claims circumduct effectually one thing: evidence. Namely, there is very little of it. "Merely on his video he's clearly in controlled airspace!!!!!" I know, but some of the resolutions reference an official FAA notice to aviation safety inspectors (ASIs) nearly electronic media on the internet.

(you can read the policy letter of the alphabet hither: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/N_8900.292.pdf)

The complaint resolutions reference this specific section of the policy:

7. Evidence. In all cases, the FAA must have acceptable bear witness in support of all alleged facts in social club to take legal enforcement activity. Inspectors are reminded that:

• Electronic media posted on the Internet is only one form of evidence which may be used to support an enforcement action and it must exist authenticated;

• Electronic media posted on the Internet is ordinarily non sufficient evidence alone to determine that an performance is not in compliance with 14 CFR; however, electronic media may serve as evidence of possible violations and may exist retained for future enforcement action; and

• Inspectors have no authority to direct or suggest that electronic media posted on the Cyberspace must be removed.

Notation: Electronic media posted on a video Web site does not automatically constitute a commercial performance or commercial purpose, or other non-hobby or non-recreational use.

So, in essence, a lot of people are saying that Casey is obviously flight his drone for commercial purposes. While I would tend to agree, the sheer fact that he's posting drone shots on a YouTube aqueduct does non automatically mean he's flying information technology commercially.

Additionally, the FAA cannot deed simply because Neistat posts a drone prune in his vlog, per the second bulletpoint. Sure, a drone prune can be used as office of a broader investigation simply nigh people complained virtually specific videos.

I'll do my best to paraphrase the complaints but volition add quotes every bit necessary.

Anyhow, allow's get into the complaints

Complaint one, v/24/2016: Angry Guy Rants

A gentleman (proper name redacted) chosen the FAA and reported Casey Neistat's use of his UAS (drone) via the FAA's Hotline Complaint system. He "seemed agitated and upset" and asked the hotline operator if they were taking the complaint seriously and wanted to know "what [they] are doing to Mr. Neistat." The person responded that they were dealing with the situation. Merely so the FAA person asked if the gentleman wanted to make a complaint and he ignored them and rambled that "Neistat makes a lot of money and disregards the FAA and he'due south going to make sure he has other people file complaints". The operator again asked if the gentleman wanted to make a complaint and he got aroused and hung up on them.

Lesson learned here:a phone call to the FAA'southward hotline is non an official complaint. Also, if you ramble along similar a jerk someone will brand a note of it and it'll exist role of some dude's random blog postal service anytime.

Complaint 2, viii/xxx/2016: Some interesting bits

Someone complained that based on his vlogs they suspected that he did not have permission from nearby airports to operate in their airspace.The office conducted an investigation. They establish that Neistat indeed had drone footage in some videos but information technology was "indeterminable whether or not Mr. Neistat is operating the device". They constitute that Neistat does not have a Section 333 UAS Exemption but had registered his drone as a hobbyist. The outcome of the investigation: "unless the Complainant personally witnesses Mr. Neistat operating the drone, we cannot apply electronic media as a sole means to substantiate the complaint." Plainly a alphabetic character was sent to Casey in May 2016 explaining the rules and regulations (perhaps after Complaint 1).

Complaint three, ix/xv/2016: More of the aforementioned

Pretty much mimics Complaint 2, zip new hither.

Complaint 4, ten/5/2016: Nashville

Casey flew his drone in this vlog and someone complained to the FAA. Complaint was closed due to lack of evidence.

Complaint 5, x/14/2016: Non just Casey

The bearding complaint referenced Casey, iJessica, and "other Youtubers that are "getting BEYOND reckless with their drones". Complaint closed once again due to lack of testify that they were operating the drones.

Complaint 6, 10/xx/2016: More of the aforementioned

The complaint was unable to be substantiated because, again, electronic media cannot exist used as a sole means to substantiate the request. Ane would've had to see Casey operating the drone in an illegal fashion in order to further legitimize the complaint.

Complaint 7, x/25/2016: A list of three email complaints

Naught really here except for someone calling information technology "You Tube" which I giggled at.

Complaint 8, 5/v/2017: The (relative) Big 1

This is really a listing of some complaints non mentioned elsewhere.

On 1/19/17 (related to this vlog I'm guessing) they received a complaint on the FAA website stating: "You guys should have a practiced look at this guy. [redacted] I don't know for certain if Adventureland is inside the KFRG Class D. I'm fairly certain he'south not in compliance with any of the published UAS regs, or any reg pertaining to operating any kind of shipping in towered airspace. I would not want to be flying the shipping that ingests ane of these chunks of plastic. He'south not ensuring any kind of see-and avoid, he's non in contact with the tower, he's got no transponder. It's dangerous ignorant and foolish. Cheers."
1/20/17 Inspectors from the office determined that the operations in the video footage appear to exist located within Class D airspace of KFRG .Inspectors identified the operators as Casey Neistat and Dean Neistat. It further indicates that Dean Neistat is a certified Commercial Airplane pilot (redacting the Certificate number) and a Certified Remote Pilot (redacting the Certificate number.
1/26/17Letters of investigation were sent to Casey Neistat and Dean Neistat
iv/3/17 UAS information letters were sent to the brothers (a big role of the FAA drone regulations is education apparently)
v/3/17"After conferring with the FAA Eastern Region UAS Focal Signal, Inspectors from this function have determined that the investigation lacks sufficient evidence for enforcement or compliance action." It goes on to reference the policy letter mentioned above.

Conclusions

Kind of a mix, actually. The FAA needs a lot of evidence to support an enforcement action and clearly sending them links to YouTube videos isn't enough. That said, this list could be comprehensive but it also could accept left off whatever new current investigations that for some reason were excluded from the request.

None of the complaint resolutions take anything to exercise with whether or non Neistat'south flight is responsible. This shouldn't exist taken as an endorsement of how he chooses to fly his drone, it only means that the FAA does not currently take plenty evidence to pursue an enforcement activity. Could that happen at a later date? Absolutely. But, to engagement, they don't take sufficient show.

You take Successfully Subscribed!